Tuesday, February 16, 2016

The 911 perps are not fools, they would know which bases need to be covered at all costs, from those that could be allowed to brew controversy. In fact, they seem to have purposely created artifacts for the expressed reason that these things would provoke controversy. Controversies that, most especially, would force the arguments/discussions etc., to assume certain things as facts, as a basis for argument.

For example, it is almost impossible to argue "planes/no planes" while focused on "extra equipment under the plane". While the addition of "missiles/drones" drags everyone back down the rabbit hole.

Well, they've brought themselves almost 15 years and counting with the configuration they settled on, that's a pretty good score for their side, a lot of additional confusion can be sown in 15 years, while witnesses are leaving the field in droves. There's a very good chance that our strict rules of evidence will mean they go free, even after their methods are uncovered, since proof sufficient may not be obtained.

But, that aside, I'm noting that there were many errors, not easily seen by lay people. Thus they went undiscovered for a very long time. But the upshot of which seems to reveal that, these perps did not have unlimited resources at their command. Nor did they have the widest variety of expert opinions to work with. Surely they'd have noticed ACARS if they did (see Pilots for 911 truth.com or simply google for ACARS). They could not conceal the explosions or the nano thermitic material left behind. But, for 15 years none of that mattered, because it was in the realm of experts which was difficult for lay people to understand.

They were unable to get the skyjackers names on the passenger lists, which should have proved a simple task for really omnipotent perps. But even more telling is the fact that, if there were no planes, cockpit voice recorders would have to be scratched and not found. Or if found, then unusable.

Once it was learned that real aircraft might not do sufficient damage to the buildings, explosives would have to be deployed. But, once explosives were to be deployed, there's a problem of getting an aircraft to impact very precise locations on the buildings. There is no known system that can do so within the almost zero margin of error called for, thus real planes could not be used. Also mitigation against the use of real planes is, the uncertain conditions of flying heavy aircraft to a target, on time, and to strike very precise locations. Thus, such tasks would have to be assigned to media management. CGI planes could be counted on to provide the precision required and do so faithfully without a hitch or other real world risks. So, as Sherlock said "Once you eliminate the impossible, what remains is..." The use of planes, with their many unreliable factors is impossible.

We also see that the perps knew that not everyone in gov't service could be relied upon to tow the required lines. Thus arrangements were made to keep such people out of the loop and away from critical areas. You could not, for example, have interceptors circling the Pentagon or the WTC towers, where the pilots could confirm that there were no wayward aircraft in sight. Fighter pilots are not easy to access for the purpose of fortuitous "accidents" should they start reciting a line, counter to the one needed to keep the wraps on the plan. Thus, without planes, there is nothing that can be detected, that could draw unwanted attention to the targets in advance. It also makes it an easy matter to keep them away from real "destinations" of fake/non-existent planes.

Then there's the unskilled untrained and woefully miserable suicide "Pilots", who would believe in advance, that such people could actually accomplish the assigned tasks? Who, in their right minds, would risk relying on a motley crew of drug using, hard drinking sex club aficionados, who could not fly light private aircraft, to pilot heavy commercial jets to any target? Faced with those facts, in advance of any mission, you'd have little choice but to scrap the mission as impossible to accomplish with any reliability. The issue of whether or not they could accomplish such a sensitive mission, despite their obvious short comings could never be risked in reality.

This kind of thinking led me to examine the possibility that Mohammad Atta might have been conning Bin Laden, telling him that he had pilots and skyjackers in training, just to game him for funding. But then, con men aren't suicidal types, so, if such a scenario were true, there would have been no follow through. After all, Atta would not con Bin Laden to fund his suicide. If Atta was suicidal, he'd have needed no funds to accomplish it. While on the other hand, if he was in it for the money, he obviously had a wish to live the "good life".

In any event, make of this what you will.
Warm regards and happy hunting.

Well, this is hardly surprising, given what we know of how dependent today's academic community is, of gov't funding etc., Academics are hardly the "warriors" who are used to living in a world steeped in the chaos of the real world. Worse yet, they are thinkers, who would quickly observe that their chances of making a difference in the short term are practically nil. Thus, they are more "lay in wait" types than they are the ones, who can be expected to lead the charge. Nor is that as bad a thing as one might expect it to be, since they're charged with giving their students the tools needed to evaluate things for themselves. While at the same time, to do so credibly, they must maintain a stance of detachment. Once they join the fray they appear to be partisan and thus lose some credibility. In short, there has to be someone holding the fort, you can't have everyone on the front lines.

Let's say that during WWII, would it be any less patriotic, to stay behind and work on engineering problems, than to go to the front? Hardly!

Take this one with a large grain of salt, no doubt you'll find some inconsistencies and suppositions in it, but it also has some redeeming instructions worthy of noting, as to how false flags might be accomplished.